What exactly does “winning” mean? The US is at war with the Iraqi people. US victory means the destruction of any independent Iraqi polity. It means a puppet government ruling over a nation of the dead.

True success, in a human sense, can only mean the end of bloodshed. There is no plausible method by which American military force can achieve that end. Victory means something completely different, and it’s something that all decent people should fervently oppose.

But I guess the pro-war activists will have to find out the hard way that the resistance is an indigenous Iraqi phenomenon and not staged-managed directly from a cave in Pakistan by Usama bin Laden.

A pet rock could be taught how to fetch in less time.

To Iraq, I hope, where they can put their money where their trust-fund baby spoon-fed mouths are.

Incidentally, I notice that the preview button has not returned yet. In the tradition of right-wing pundits everywhere, I blame Teh Left (and Clinton’s Almighty Penis).

At least 63 killed in Iraq market attacks
Dozens wounded; bloodshed is the worst seen in a day across the nation

In the eyes of conservatives we are always winning. More bloodshed? See they are desperate! Less bloodshed? See we’ve stopped them!

On Salon letters I argued with a guy who posted some thing saying we were winning, about how the old insurgents were well trained and the new ones were younger, had poor training and poor equipment.

The date on that report? 2005!

Have these guys never heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

I *hope* we win, I hope this surge works out, but there isn’t much reason to believe it is going to.